XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nz.politics   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:46:10 -0500, Socialism is for losers   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro   
   >>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over   
   >>>>>>>> ICE agents??   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video   
   >>>>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Yet he clealy got hit.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in   
   >>>>> front of an operating vehicle?  Chapter & verse with cite, please.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that   
   >>>>> doctrine is a standards violation...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> -hh   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out   
   >>>> of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their   
   >>>> lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident   
   >>>> like this has happened with them.   
   >>>   
   >>> She hit him and she got what she deserved.   
   >>   
   >>Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a   
   >>running vehicle.   
   >>   
   >>FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two   
   >>attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.   
   >>   
   >>Both have always taken their cases to trial.   
   >>   
   >>After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client   
   >>they’d advise:   
   >>   
   >>- Seek a plea deal   
   >>- Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence   
   >>- Accept anything that isn’t de jure LWOP (life with out parole)   
   >>   
   >>In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a   
   >>living, think this case is unwinnable.  They would try to defend his   
   >>actions, they’d just try and lower the impact of the outcome.   
   >>   
   >>Their main sticking point were:   
   >>   
   >>  - "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung   
   >>jury - but I can’t get there on shots 2 and 3"   
   >>   
   >>- "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"   
   >>   
   >>- "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>-hh   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >It will depend on the jury. She did hit the gas as he was sting in   
   >front of the car, and regardless of the wheels being turned. she hit   
   >him.   
      
   This is akin to raising a loaded gun at an officer and then saying "It   
   was aimed to the right of him".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)